Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

o311mc 254

o311mc 254

Really? the same way I would explain any mass shooting, A psycho went off the reservation and killed innocent people. The point she is making is that if people were more reverent these things would not happen. I'm not saying there are not self proclaimed religious crazies out there that would not do evil shit in the name of God. I'm saying a follower of Christ would not do it, if they are actually a follower of Christ.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Farmer Vincent 7460

Farmer Vincent 7460

Really? the same way I would explain any mass shooting, A psycho went off the reservation and killed innocent people. The point she is making is that if people were more reverent these things would not happen. I'm not saying there are not self proclaimed religious crazies out there that would not do evil shit in the name of God. I'm saying a follower of Christ would not do it, if they are actually a follower of Christ.

The problems of having a society of Christ followers is demonstrated by those societies that are Allah followers. It's exclusive, which wouldn't be a good fit for a country of diversity. Secularism is the only fair way.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

o311mc 254

o311mc 254

The problems of having a society of Christ followers is demonstrated by those societies that are Allah followers. It's exclusive, which wouldn't be a good fit for a country of diversity. Secularism is the only fair way.

"The problems of having a society of Christ followers is demonstrated by those societies that are Allah followers."

I have no idea what this means?

but,

I think tolerance is the only fair way. Not about having a society of Christ followers, it's about having Christ followers within a society, different things in my mind. It only turns exclusive when the part that doesn't believe gets offended by those who do. I do understand why this is, way to many hypocrits out there that spew Christian values. Pick any religion there are Hypocrits within them all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Farmer Vincent 7460

Farmer Vincent 7460

"The problems of having a society of Christ followers is demonstrated by those societies that are Allah followers."

I have no idea what this means?

but,

I think tolerance is the only fair way. Not about having a society of Christ followers, it's about having Christ followers within a society, different things in my mind. It only turns exclusive when the part that doesn't believe gets offended by those who do. I do understand why this is, way to many hypocrits out there that spew Christian values. Pick any religion there are Hypocrits within them all.

In the context of the editorial exclaiming that the problem is the lack of god in public education, I'm saying that it's inappropriate for god or gods to be promoted in classrooms where an increasing amount of students are non-religious. If there's an authoritarian push of religion in schools, as Betsy Devos would like, then there's bound to be a division and subsequent discrimination against those who don't toe the line. You see that in Islamic countries. So rather than allowing social division to take place there should instead be a push in secular humanism. It would be my personal preference also that the sciences aren't displaced by superstitions.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

grieker 3309

grieker 3309

Of all the tired arguments put forward by gun control advocates, one is the idea that they donâ€™t have to know how guns work to debate on the merits. More often than not, they erect a strawman by claiming theyâ€™re expected to have detailed knowledge of firearms to discuss the issue of gun control. The truth is, Second Amendment advocates just want gun control advocates to stop speaking from a position of total ignorance.

The issue of gun control is fraught with emotional rhetoric that doesnâ€™t advance the debate. It also serves as a vehicle for gun control advocates to make wildly inaccurate claims about firearms and bristle when told theyâ€™re wrong as if it doesnâ€™t matter. But it does matter. If one is advocating for public policy implementation, they should accurately lay out their case and use information available to everyone else.

To put it into a broader context, pretend two people are debating automobile safety. Participant A says, â€œLook, we need to do something. The Dodge Challenger SRT Demon is a dangerous road vehicle. It can travel at speeds of up to 400 miles per hour!â€ Participant B responds, â€œWhat? Thatâ€™s not true. The top speed is limited to 168 miles per hour.â€ The retort from Participant A is, â€œOh, give me a break! That doesnâ€™t matter!â€

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gp80mac 417

gp80mac 417

Of all the tired arguments put forward by gun control advocates, one is the idea that they donâ€™t have to know how guns work to debate on the merits. More often than not, they erect a strawman by claiming theyâ€™re expected to have detailed knowledge of firearms to discuss the issue of gun control. The truth is, Second Amendment advocates just want gun control advocates to stop speaking from a position of total ignorance.

The issue of gun control is fraught with emotional rhetoric that doesnâ€™t advance the debate. It also serves as a vehicle for gun control advocates to make wildly inaccurate claims about firearms and bristle when told theyâ€™re wrong as if it doesnâ€™t matter. But it does matter. If one is advocating for public policy implementation, they should accurately lay out their case and use information available to everyone else.

To put it into a broader context, pretend two people are debating automobile safety. Participant A says, â€œLook, we need to do something. The Dodge Challenger SRT Demon is a dangerous road vehicle. It can travel at speeds of up to 400 miles per hour!â€ Participant B responds, â€œWhat? Thatâ€™s not true. The top speed is limited to 168 miles per hour.â€ The retort from Participant A is, â€œOh, give me a break! That doesnâ€™t matter!â€

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Farmer Vincent 7460

Farmer Vincent 7460

Of all the tired arguments put forward by gun control advocates, one is the idea that they donâ€™t have to know how guns work to debate on the merits. More often than not, they erect a strawman by claiming theyâ€™re expected to have detailed knowledge of firearms to discuss the issue of gun control. The truth is, Second Amendment advocates just want gun control advocates to stop speaking from a position of total ignorance.

The issue of gun control is fraught with emotional rhetoric that doesnâ€™t advance the debate. It also serves as a vehicle for gun control advocates to make wildly inaccurate claims about firearms and bristle when told theyâ€™re wrong as if it doesnâ€™t matter. But it does matter. If one is advocating for public policy implementation, they should accurately lay out their case and use information available to everyone else.

To put it into a broader context, pretend two people are debating automobile safety. Participant A says, â€œLook, we need to do something. The Dodge Challenger SRT Demon is a dangerous road vehicle. It can travel at speeds of up to 400 miles per hour!â€ Participant B responds, â€œWhat? Thatâ€™s not true. The top speed is limited to 168 miles per hour.â€ The retort from Participant A is, â€œOh, give me a break! That doesnâ€™t matter!â€

The opposite is true as well. When someone says that assault rifles are offensive weapons that are designed to kill lots of people the retort from pro gun people is often to say that any number of other things are also deadly, like automobiles. But I can't recall a mass murder by car in a school.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

o311mc 254

o311mc 254

In the context of the editorial exclaiming that the problem is the lack of god in public education, I'm saying that it's inappropriate for god or gods to be promoted in classrooms where an increasing amount of students are non-religious. If there's an authoritarian push of religion in schools, as Betsy Devos would like, then there's bound to be a division and subsequent discrimination against those who don't toe the line. You see that in Islamic countries. So rather than allowing social division to take place there should instead be a push in secular humanism. It would be my personal preference also that the sciences aren't displaced by superstitions.

OK, but right now and for some time now God hasn't been part of the education process, and we have far worse division, and discrimination than was present "back in the day" before kids starting shooting their classmates. Many don't regard faith as a superstition., and I am one of them. I think many people agree with you that god is inappropriate in schools, and I believe this to be at the root of the issue.